Sub Specializations for classes

[Sylvius the Mad]

No. Specialisations encourage the designers to shoehorn each class into specific roles (or each specialisation into a specific role), and I don't want them to do that.

[forgottenlor]

If character development is as flexible as promised, I fail to see the need for subclasses. Subclasses usually work best for rigid classes (i.e. they offer at least a LITTLE character development).  If I were to want a subclass, Id go with something like in Dragon Age.  Since P:E is already offering choices in skill and talent development, I'd only added subclasses that added a few minor bonuses without restricting the main class. 

[nikolokolus]

Assuming each class covers an archetype and within that archetype there is some latitude to mix and match a variety of skills so each character can be a little bit unique then I don't see the need for multi-classing or kits.

 

Then again my idea of a good time is Castles and Crusades and Dungeon Crawl Classics PnP systems, so I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask.

[lolaldanee]

i am in favor of a classless system, however, since we are stuck with classes, i'd like the Dragon age model

giving classes a whole new set of skills, like blood magic or something (of course this should go on top of very flexible classes in the first place, just adding even more options)

Edited July 13, 2013 by lolaldanee

[Rahelron]

We already have a lot of classes in this game. Games like Dragon Age and Diablo need skill trees and subclasses, but it's because they have just 3-5 classes to choose at the beginning of the game.

 

It is proven that too much variety does not mean diversity and doesn't improve the player's experience. After a certain threshold (3 to 7 options in the same category) people aren't able to compare the different alternatives anymore, they just get confused. Yeah, shure: if you really took your time to analyze all the different options you could tell the differencies even if PE had 20 or more classes/subclasses. But tell me: would be those meaningful options? Would they have a meaningful impact on the gameplay, creating new dynamics and so on? I don't think so.

 

I would prefer the developers focused on other parts of the game, like story, crafting, housing and so on.

[teknoman2]

i would not mind, but i do not see the point either. if you can customize the growth of your character in a way that matches a certain specialized class, it's the same as having that class all along, but without the restrictions that come with it. so if i want to have a certain bonus, i ll invest more points on it, limiting how high i can get other skills, but not limiting what other skills im allowed to get

[Karkarov]

Kits and pretige classes are nonsense.  "I would rather call myself a Kensai than a Fighter".  Kensai's are fighters, they are just fighters who specialize in using Katana's historically speaking.  Fighter is not a profession or job title, it is a general description of what you do.  A fighter could be a Gladiator who mastered the trident and is always in pit fights.  A fighter could be a Longbowman in the king's army.  A fighter could be a Bounty Hunter.  The only real difference between these characters is motivation and the choices they made when it came to what skills and weapons to learn.

 

They are separate professions yes, but they aren't separate "ideologies" or skill sets for lack of a better word.

 

And that's what classes should be, an overall skill set and method of approach, not an actual job or character description.  No one should just call themselves a "Fighter".

Edited July 13, 2013 by Karkarov

[Dwarfare]

While getting specialized "classes" might be nice or interesting, I feel like it tries to deviate from the original class more than necessary.  Personally I'd rather have kit abilities that could be unlocked via training with masters of the combat form you find in your travels/special quests which challenge your character in new ways (forcing your character to alter his technique and perhaps discover a new one in order to meet a new form of challenge), should you meet the prerequisites.  Tack on bits here and there to your preference, special skills that can be learned afield or passive bonuses from various other characters in the game, but only have your character have so many extra bonus slots with which to customize such abilities.  Such abilities should feel worthwhile and unique, helping to further define your characters skills.

 

Basically find various events in the world that allow you to dip out useful techniques that would have been mainstays of various "prestige" classes, with varied skills, a number of different sources, and call it whatever the hell you like.  Your character takes what he finds useful to customize his combat to his own desires rather than locking himself into special kits, and it's more your own.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Dwarfare

[bonarbill]

Kits and pretige classes are nonsense.  "I would rather call myself a Kensai than a Fighter".  Kensai's are fighters, they are just fighters who specialize in using Katana's historically speaking.  Fighter is not a profession or job title, it is a general description of what you do.  A fighter could be a Gladiator who mastered the trident and is always in pit fights.  A fighter could be a Longbowman in the king's army.  A fighter could be a Bounty Hunter.  The only real difference between these characters is motivation and the choices they made when it came to what skills and weapons to learn.

 

They are separate professions yes, but they aren't separate "ideologies" or skill sets for lack of a better word.

 

And that's what classes should be, an overall skill set and method of approach, not an actual job or character description.  No one should just call themselves a "Fighter".

 

I'm not trying to sound rude, but by this logic, what's the point of the barbarian and Paladin in this game then (going by the description we heard about on the kickstarter updates)?  One is a commanding type fighter and the other is a fighter that wild and untamed.  I certainly don't think these class are more specialized than an unarmored swordsman who trades defense for speed and power.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Rather than outright specializations, I would like to see each class have a choice of what special abilities they get. For example, a Fighter could chose between "Defender" and "Offensive Stance"* instead of being saddled with "Defender", which is not very useful for a fighter who wants to deal high amounts of damage and is not concerned with defense. Giving the player the choice of which ability to take allows them to craft their own "specialization" instead of shoehorning them into a role.

 

*not a confirmed PE ability AFAIK, but think of a similar ability to the 3.X/PF feat "Power Attack". I made up the name.

[Karkarov]

I'm not trying to sound rude, but by this logic, what's the point of the barbarian and Paladin in this game then (going by the description we heard about on the kickstarter updates)?  One is a commanding type fighter and the other is a fighter that wild and untamed.  I certainly don't think these class are more specialized than an unarmored swordsman who trades defense for speed and power.

 

Hence my usage of the word "ideology".  There is more to being a paladin that just being a fighter.  A knight in the kings guard might be a fighter while there could also be a knight in the king's guard who is a paladin.  They have will have different skill sets and their "mentality" is different.  A paladin lives by a code or creed that typically makes them part of a greater organization or order, they are dedicated to something bigger than themselves.  A fighter can live by a code or creed too.... but it is not their whole life, and their creed could be to just live by their own personal code or other things it doesn't have to be to a religion, organization, or anything else.  A fighter can choose to live for number 1, a paladin can't.  But this faith and dedication also manifests itself in other ways too, a paladin is more than a martial warrior, they have "holy" powers and their own version of "faith". 

 

A barbarian is someone who "lives on the land and grew up outside society", they have chosen to live by their own means and focus on survival and instinct over discipline and training.

 

A fighter is someone who "lives by the sword" for lack of a better term, they have to chosen to make martial prowess their be all end all in life.

 

A paladin is someone who "lives for their code or order" they have chosen to live for others and to be a champion of something greater than just themselves.

 

Three very different concepts that do not necessarily co relate.

[BlackyNoir]

Classes are inherently bad design, why add more?

 

[rjshae]

I like the current approach of providing talents (feats) to create some degree of class focus, without being enough to overly blur the distinctiveness of each class. I.e. you can build a fighter character that is 15% mage, or a mage character that is 15% fighter, but neither will be fully up to the job of the other and you'll lose some alternative benefits in the process. Hence, I'm fine with not including the prestige class cludginess of D&D.